WASHINGTON
For more than a decade, sailors and officers in the Navy's surface force have been hearing about an odd-looking, high-tech destroyer that would usher in a new era for the fleet and dramatically change their service.
The DDG 1000 series of ships would run on quiet and compact electric motors, not today's gas turbine engines. The ships would be unusually large but built with a radar-evading profile to make them appear small, and they would carry a new gun able to hit precisely targets 50 miles or more inland.
Most important for sailors, the destroyers would carry highly trained, computer-savvy crews half as large as the force on current destroyers.
As recently as early June, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer reaffirmed the Bush
administration's support for the new ships. But as Congress refines spending plans for 2009 this summer, Navy leaders appear ready to abandon the DDG 1000 program, building only two destroyers for what once was seen as a force of two dozen or more.
The House of Representatives already has voted for at least a pause in DDG 1000 purchases, citing the cost - as much as $5 billion each - of the first two ships in the series and their dependence on still-unproven technologies.
In a statement released last week, the Navy seemed resigned to an early end for the program. "Even if we do not receive funding... beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy's future," the statement asserted.
"It's pretty clear that unless there's a major surprise, the class will stop at two ships," said Robert Work, a retired Marine officer and defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Along with cost issues, new evidence that the ships aren't large enough or can't be configured to hold missile-defense radars sought by the administration has undermined the destroyer, he said.
The DDG 1000 was conceived as a successor to the Navy's Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the current mainstay of the surface fleet. Though far less sophisticated than the new ships, the Burke destroyers are far cheaper, at less than
$2 billion each, and still are regarded as the world's premier surface combatants.
The DDG 1000's likely demise may provide a new measure of job security for hundreds of surface sailors and officers. Navy leaders once saw the destroyer's computer-controlled systems as a replacement for 150 or more sailors per ship; they expected to use billions of dollars saved on salaries and benefits to pay for more new ships and labor-saving technologies.
The projected savings have all but disappeared, however. Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, wrote last month that "cost savings associated with DDG 1000's smaller crew... are largely offset by higher estimated maintenance costs for this significantly more complex ship."
Limiting the DDG 1000 series to two ships - a total of seven were in the Navy's most recent plan - frees up enough construction money for eight more Arleigh Burke destroyers, according to a Navy estimate. At 330 sailors per ship, that translates into more than 2,600 additional Navy jobs.
Of course, other jobs - those of civilian shipbuilders in New England and on the Gulf Coast - may be lost if the DDG 1000 program ends. That's a particular concern to lawmakers facing re-election, such as Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whose state is home to a shipyard building the new destroyer.
Close to 100,000 industrial jobs in 48 states could be harmed if the program ends, Collins and Virginia Sen. John Warner said in a July 10 letter to Navy leaders.
Work and other analysts said the destroyer program's fate also raises questions about the future of a planned cruiser, the CGX, that was to use the DDG 1000's distinctive, wave-cutting hull design.
"A key selling point was the common hull," said Loren Thompson, president of the Lexington Institute, a defense consulting firm. If the DDG 1000 hull can't accommodate the radars needed for the planned national missile defense system, he said, "I suspect we're headed toward a complete rethink of surface combatant modernization."
Cost will be central to that analysis. A series of studies ordered by Congress have raised bipartisan concern that the Navy has crafted a shipbuilding plan that the nation can't afford, particularly given the continuing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And if the shipbuilding program is unaffordable, critics warn, the inevitable result is a fleet that shrinks to far fewer than the 313 ships the service insists it needs.
Growing concern about the cost and availability of fuel also is pushing an effort by some in Congress to make the CGX nuclear-powered. That would almost certainly add to the ship's initial cost, though proponents say it could be cheaper in the long run.
Along with DDG 1000 and CGX, the Navy is developing a new series of aircraft carriers, the first of which will cost more than $10 billion, and is struggling to rein in the cost of a new littoral combat ship.
"The fact that we have missed our forecasting costs in the past has brought our credibility into question," Roughead acknowledged last spring.
But limiting the DDG 1000 series to two ships also may raise questions about the Navy's fiscal management.
Retired Vice Adm. Tim LaFleur, who served as the Navy's top surface warfare officer from 2001 to 2005, said the DDG 1000's distinctive design and operating systems will require the service to maintain special supply lines and training programs for sailors for decades. Such expenses routinely are spread across a long line of ships but are harder to justify when just two are involved, he said.
Because of those costs, the Navy probably would offer few objections if Congress decided to cancel the DDG 1000 program completely, Work said.
Still, the service can realize substantial long-term value out of just a two-ship class, he added, by using the DDG 1000s as platforms to test new technologies. They may also allow the Navy to determine finally whether a large, complex warship can be manned effectively by a small crew, a point of debate in naval circles for years.
In the 1950s, Work recalled, the Navy planned a line of "hunter-killer cruisers" to patrol the north Atlantic and ward off Soviet submarines. The ships were to be loaded with sensitive sonars and new, homing torpedoes, but they proved so expensive that only one, the Norfolk, was constructed.
The Navy got nearly two decades of service out of the Norfolk, which was retired in 1970. An attack submarine now bears the city's name.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
RE: Design for future missions
I see your points on this. DDG-51 has a purpose, though it doesn't take care of everything we need. I do respectfully disagree with one thing though. There will be no fight over Taiwan. China will get it without one shot being fired. It'll be just like the Anschluss between Germany and Austria in 38. China wants that all in one piece and economically vibrant. Destroying Taiwan will serve them no purpose.
we can't afford it because,
Submitted by Gertz Point on Sun, 07/20/2008 at 6:43 pm.
We can't affored it because Bush has put us in debt up to our eyeballs.
I knew a Bush bashing was out there in the wings.......
Design for future missions
By the time ANY new class of ship gets designed, purchased, built and delivered, we'll be onto the next set of conflicts. We can't design ships based on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What kind of ships will help us when we face off with Iran, North Korea and eventually get dragged into Taiwan's independence fight with China? We need platforms that can shoot the next generation of Tomahawks well inland, put tons of shells on the beach from way over the horizon. These ships need smaller crews because we've already discovered that we can't handle an extended conflict without sending our fleet Sailors to go play soldier. And we need nuclear and other advanced modes of propulsion because $140 oil is VERY cheap compared to what we'll be paying by the time the next class of ships is delivered to the fleet. DDG1000 may or may not be the answer, but one thing is for certain. The DDG 51 class will not meet
we can't afford it because,
We can't affored it because Bush has put us in debt up to our eyeballs.
A real destroyer
The only two things this pipe dream will destroy is the Navy's ship building budget and the federal budget. Wake up, Congress!!
Pie in the sky, bugaboo to start with
DDG 1000 was thought up by the same brain trust that envisioned college educated Seaman Recruits, dessed like ensigns, living aboard ship in their own staterooms and walking about with their own personal lap-top's issued at boot camp.
The Navy direly needs to go back to MILSPECS for ALL products. And a law needs to be passed that forbids flag officers, from going to work as corporate project heads for DoD contractors, the "Monday after they retired last Friday". In fact, they should be required to recuse themselves from any such conflict of interest indefinately.
Don't Pay for Late Projects
To expand on markk33831's post. Why does the government accept a late project and then PAY for it being late? Put some of these projects back in the military plants, and let the contractors scream. Even better, hold payments up until the product is produced and is successful. Eventually they may wise up. First tho, you would have to vote out the congressmen who will also scream for their contributors, I mean, their constituents.
A good example is the Sidewinder missile. It was developed by the Navy at China Lake, and tested by lashing it to a car and running it up and down the runways. Cheap to develop and produce, cheap to shoot. And still a Top Gun WEAPON!!!
Hold on a second...
Unless I'm mistaken, Congress only approves the funding for a project, not the actual acquisition of the project and bidding by the contractors. That is left to the individual branches of the military. Remember the mess the CHAir Force started with awarding a contract to a French aircraft manufacturer? That was the Air Force's fault, not politicians...the politicians are the ones in a outrage on that one. Same thing here...some Naval officer in charge of contracts and the Navy's purse got some kickbacks and maybe even the promise of a fat job after he/she retires, working for the contractor that botched this up. That's how it works.
More dollars equals fewer ships
With a shrinking Navy of less than 280 active ships, I would think that Navy priorities would be structured for more ships and less complexity. The maintenance for all that sophistication would be cost prohibitive and it would be tough to find and retain the labor force knowlegeable enough in new technology areas. It is the beginning of a decline. We will never see the levels of numbers of ships approach what they were in the 80s and 90s - its just too costly.
A way to avoid the contractors
The Navy could always go back to making ships at Navy shipyards. If private industry keeps screwing things up with shoddy work and massive cost overruns, we should just start building the ships in the Navy yards again. After the private contractors lose a few large contracts that way, maybe they'll wise up.
And we'll be using these...
mostly in Afghanistan and Iraq :) Why do we need these???
Glass Jaw
Remember what happened to the Cole? 17 sailors died by a cheap homemade bomb, and the ship was almost lost. Fortunately for the US, the sailors saved their ship?
Scotty from Star Trek summed it up best: "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)
Larry is Correct
That's a fine response, Larry. Thanks for sharing it.
For the others: If my civil war history is correct, the c.s.s. virginia was experimental, and didn't last very long, either. Shall we return to building clippers, man-o-wars, and ships-of-the-line? Not my sailors, not my navy.
Trial & Error
Any new concept whether it be a better mouse trap or a new cruiser requires testing and application. The Navy has probably received their money's worth on this project. Some of the value received is the knowledge to not go forward with the project. Technology changes fast and the Navy needs to stay on the cutting edge to insure our country's defense. And, yes, it is expensive but worth every billion dollars!
It Makes No Sense
It makes no sense to tie up $5 billion in one vessel. History has taught us that in time of peace or war you need many vessels to cover the multitude of assignments needed to win the peace or war. You can't do everything with a few vessels and in time of war you won't be able to maintain the complex computer systems. Lose the a/c and you have no computers in tropical climes.
We would be much better off improving our current fleet and only do moderate cost high tech experimental vessels. If you can't afford to build 'em or maintain 'em, don't do it!
On the crew reduction, that's a red herring! You need bodies onboard to maintain the ship and feed the crew as well as fight the ship. Unless you're traveling in space, someone has to chip paint and keep the ship functioning.
Very expensive......
but, darn it looks awesome!
Not to be rude or shortsighted, but
Why is it the Navy's problem/concern if 100,000 civilian/government contractors, east of no where, lose their jobs? If it weren't for the the greedy/crooked politicians with their hands out and into everything. Ah but then that's the american way, everything driven by greed and some politician always worrying about getting re-elected and not really giving a rat's backside about the military and its members.
Unproven Technologies/Congress pet projects
The DoD mandated that unproven technologies no longer be used in major acquistion programs several years ago(scalability and upgrade capability was supposed to be built in to accomadate upgrades), yet we still see things like this occuring regularly. Look at the fiascos with the San Antonio class, the Littoral Combat Ships, various aircraft and now the DDG1000. I am glad the DoD says enough is enough with these contractors selling blue sky, and however the acquistion folks (read congress)continue to buy the snake oil at the taxpayers expense. It's all about money for congressional districts, not about the most effective and proven tools for our forces. Navy can't be an global force if its ships never get built because the design doesn't work!
Another greedy defense contractor gets rich...
ANother defense contractor gets rich off of the taxpayer, but once the nuts and bolts start to go together, the whole thing comes unraveled and we're left paying a hefty dinner bill without even a to-go plate.
The contractor should be forced to refund the money they were paid.
Too Big a leap too soon
Sounds like the navy was trying to make too large of a technological leap too soon. What about an improved design of the Burke class then? A new cruiser class with better bombardment capability would be nice for littoral warfare. Another design of shallow draft patrol craft too, for dealing with piracy, which seems to be a growing problem.
The Navy is looking too far into the future and that is what is screwing up their plans from the sound of things.